BharatTaxGST

Avinash Kumar vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Original PDF →
CRM-M/25278/2026HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01075092202606 May 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA3 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 109 CRM-M-25278-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 06.05.2026 Avinash Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Paras Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short - ‘the BNSS’) has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.134 dated 20.06.2025, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present dispute arises under the provisions of the GST Act and no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out. The Petitioner has been wrongly implicated as he has neither applied for registration of Firm which is allegedly committed violation of provisions of GST Act nor he has any link with the management and business transactions of the firm. Moreover, the liability GEETA RANI 2026.05.29 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of

this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

CRM-M-25278-2026

(O&M) ( 2 )

sought to be imposed is civil in nature and could be recoverable as per the provisions of GST Act. Furthermore, it is admitted case of the respondent No.2 that no fraud is involved when the demand of tax, interest and penalty was raised for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Before, registration of the FIR, the Respondent no.2 tried to make recovery as per Section 79 of the Act however, when no recovery was effected from Petitioner being in possession of no movable and immovable property, the Respondent no. 2 without following due process of law, wrongly registered FIR against the Petitioner only to coerce him and to effect recovery. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. Thus, learned counsel prayed for concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner has committed a serious fraud upon the department by operating without any genuine firm or business, despite obtaining a GST registration. It is contended that upon verification, it has been revealed that a substantial amount of tax, running into crores, was collected but not deposited with the department, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioner. He further contended that the allegations clearly attract the ingredients of cheating as reflected in the FIR, and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

5.

Heard. GEETA RANI 2026.05.29 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

CRM-M-25278-2026

(O&M) ( 3 )

6.

After arguing for some time, when this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the present petition.

7.

His prayer is accepted.

8.

Dismissed as withdrawn. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 06.05.2026

JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GEETA RANI 2026.05.29 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.